Max Burke wrote:
I didn't say it didn't happen. I asked Chris to document instances
where a group peacefully picketing outside a courthouse about the
today's CS system were prevented from doing so, the MEN were jsiled,
and the women just sent on their ways. That is what he claimed.
Did you even READ what I posted?????
The question that needs to be answered is why are YOU asking for
proof that it happens when clearly it DOES happen.....
I do understand how unfair today's system is, Max. I'm in the
middle of it, too!!
And yet you question what many of us post about the unfair 'system.'
And you also *defend* several aspects of this 'unfair system' as
being justified and right.
Why is that?
Well, Max, since you asked, my impression is that YOU feel that ANY
support paid for children is evil and wrong!
Strawman and BS.....
This is *your* wrong impression........
I don't feel the same
way. I do not feel that men should have the right to walk away from
their children just because they want to.
Let men be *real fathers* to their children and they DONT walk away.
I think there needs to be
a system that gives men equal rights to women as far as choosing to
be fathers. But I do not think that permitting them to father
children and walk away any time they choose should be part of the
system. And I've said that before.
IOW men should not have the legal and moral right to decide if they'll
be a parent or not, even though women already have that right.
I believe joint custody shoud be the norm. But if a situation crops
up where one parent or the other is unable to parent (whether it be
abuse--REAL abuse, not the nonsense claims we see too often today--or
not wanting to be bothered),
Real abuse happens in only *SIX PERCENT* of divorces; Seventy percent of
divorces happen because the other person is NOT the person the one
seeking the divorce wants them to be. Two thirds of all divorces are
initiated by *women.*
OF COURSE the NCP should pay their share
of the child's NEEDS! The idea behind the system--that children
should be provided for by their parents--is not a bad idea. It's how
it is being done today that needs to be changed--starting with 50-50
And dumping a SAH parent back into the job market after years of
taking care of home and family and saying "Support 'em your 50% of
the time by yourself" isn't right, either.
Then neither is dumping the wage earner into the SAH role. What do YOU
say about that TM? what form of compensation do YOU think the SAH should
have to pay the wage earner when that happens? Anything at ALL?
Me, I believe neither needs to be compensated in any way at all by their
ex for their chosen marital roles when the divorce becomes final.
You don't want a fair
system, Max. You want "fairness" for men--and screw the kids and
Strawman. Oh and BS as well (especially the bit about the kids).....
I want men to be treated the same way women are currently treated as
parents to their own children and as divorcees.....
Why you find that idea wrong is something you need to explain, not
Besides which, the question was for Chris. He jumps in with these
little one-liners, but never backs up what he says with fact.
This is a public forum where everyone gets to participate.......
# If the abstract rights of men will bear discussion and explanation,
then those of women, by a parity of reasoning, will not fail the same
test; Although a different opinion prevails in the minds of most women
when their rights are put to that test....
Replace the obvious with paradise to email me.
See Found Images at: